Conformity and Obedience

I. OVERVIEW

Two of the more recognized areas of study
within the study of social influence are the study of
conformity and obedience. Each of these topics typically
receives considerable attention in most General Psychology
and Social Psychology textbooks. Given this level of
attention, two of the psychologists associated with these
areas of study (Stanley Milgram and Solomon Asch) have
become two of the more recognized names in social
psychology. This module will provide various content and
resources to assist in preparing a classroom presentation on
these topics.

Additional information, comments or
questions can be obtained from the author of this
module:

Asch (1951) - arguably the classic
study in this area. Using a line judgment task, the
author found that when individuals wer placed in a group
of confederates who made an obvious incorrect decision,
they went along with the incorrect choice about 37 % of
the time. This finding has been confirmed in more recent
studies as well.

Fein, Goethals & Kassin (1998) -
when participants were asked to view a political debate
among George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, it was
found the presence of a confederate who cheered for one
of the candidates influenced the participant's evaluation
of that candidate in a positive manner.

FACTORS RELATED TO
CONFORMITY

Informational influence - when
you conform because you believe that others are correct
in their judgments. Sherif's (1936) study illustrates
this concept.

Normative influence - when you
conform because you fear the possible negative social
consequences of not going along. Asch's (1951) study
illustrates this concept.

Size of group - conformity
tends to increase as the size of the group increases,
however, there is little change in conformity once the
group size reaches 4-5.

Awareness of norms - the more
aware someone is of the prevailing norm, the more likely
one is to conform.

Presence of an ally - Asch
(1951) found that even the presence of just one
confederate that goes against the majority choice can
reduce conformity as much as 80%.

Age differences - there is
some evidence that age may play a factor. For example,
during adolescence there is an increased tendency to
"conform" to peers.

Gender differences - there is
some indication that there are some gender differences
but the findings are not clearly established
yet.

Cultural influences - many
instances of cultural influences leading to differences
in conformity.

Bickman (1974) - had research
assistants "order" people passing by on the street to do
something. When they wore security guards uniforms,
almost 9 out of 10 people obeyed.

Milgram (1963) - the classic study in
this area. A participant was paired with a confederate in
a study of "the effects of punishment on learning." The
participant served as the "teacher" and the confederate
was the "learner." The teacher was to provide an
progressive level of shock (though no shock was actually
given) to the learner every time the learner gave an
incorrect response. The question was how strong of a
shock would the "teacher" provide. A group of
psychiatrists estimated that only 1 % of the population
would provide the maximum level of shock (450 volts) and
most predicted that most participants would stop around
135 volts. Overall 65 % of the participants provided the
maximum "shock" of 450 volts despite the pleas of the
"learner". Though the original study consisted of all
men, the study has produced similar findings with women
and in other countries.

FACTORS RELATED TO
OBEDIENCE

Authority figure - the
prestige of the authority figure and the physical
presence of the figure influence the degree of obedience.
The higher the perceived prestige, the more the confomity
and the physical presence of the authority figure
increases the level of obedience. However, Hofling,
Brotzman, Dalrymple, Graves & Pierce (1966)
demostrated that powerful authority figures (in this case
a physcian) can produce high levels of obedience without
being physically present. The authors studied how nurses
would respond to a phone request from a physician to
administer an uncommon drug at a high dosage with the
potential for harm to the patient. They found that 21 of
22 nurses were willing to complete these phone orders
(though the nurses were stopped from actually
administring the drug).

Proximity of victim - evidence
indicates a person is more likely to obey an order that
may produce harm if that person is physically separated
from the potential victim. Milgram observed a drop to 40%
full obedience when he placed both the participant and
confederate in the same room and had a drop to 30% full
obedience when the participant had to physically place
the confederates hand on a metal shock plate.

Personal responsibility - in
Milgram's study the experimenter assumed the
responsibility for any harm that could have occurred.
When a person has to assume personal responsibility for
any harm that can come from obedience, the level of
obedience tends to drop.

Escalation of harm - Milgram's
study involved a gradual escalation of potential harm to
the confederate as the "teacher" increased the levels of
shock. The evidence suggests that situations that led to
gradual escalation of harm tend to produce more
conformity, that is, once a person starts the process it
becomes more difficult to not obey.

IV. ACTIVITIES/ASSIGNMENTS

CONFORMITY

Replication of Asch's
experiment - with a little work it is possible to
produce a good classroom version of Asch's classic
experiment on conformity. The details of the activity can
be found in many General Psychology Instructor's manuals
[e.g., Garrison (1995) ].

The Candid Camera segment "Face
the rear" - is an excellent tool for generating
discussion and illustrating conformity. These classic
clips from the original show consist of a group of
confederates and one participant on a simulated elevator.
The confederates change directions, as well remove and
put on their hats on cue as the participant responds to
the pressure to conform. Several different participants
illustrate the differences between the ones that conform
easily and at least one guy that does somewhat
reluctantly. A sure hit with students and instructors. It
is available from McGraw-Hill publishers on both video
and CD.

The Discovering Psychology video
segment (produced by Annenberg/CPB) "The Power of the
Situation" includes a clip from Asch's experiment, as
well as Milgram's obedience study, Zimbardo's prison
study, etc. This video provides an excellent tool for
introducing social influence including conformity and
obedience.

OBEDIENCE

The classroom authority -
Hunter (1981) suggest an activity where you bring someone
into your class before you arrive(e.g., another
instructor) and have the students fulfill a series of
requests (e.g., move them around, place hands on desk,
etc.) including some "strange" requests (e.g., everyone
with blond hair stand). Use your imagination. Then you
can arrive at your classroom and lead a discussion on why
people "obeyed" or "didn't obey" this person's orders.
Excellent way to illustrate how easily people obey orders
of an assumed "authority figure."

Student's prediction - Just as
Milgram had a group of psychiatrists predict the level of
shock that participants would administer in his study
before he conducted it, you can ask your students to do
the same thing before you start your discussion. Bolt
(1999) describes this exercise as well as provides a
handout that can be used to facilitate the
activity.

The film Obedience - Penn
State has a 45 minute film/video available of the
original Milgram study that puts the student there while
the experiment is being conducted. It also includes
interviews with various participants.

V. RESOURCES

References

Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of
group pressure upon the modification and distortion of
judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership
and men. Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie Press.

Bickman, L. (1974). The social power
of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
4, 47-61.